$1500 represents the money you've already given them to purchase the hardware. You already overpay for that - fine - then they demand a 30% cut from $5 you're giving to a struggling independent creator. It's pure greed coming from one of the richest companies in the world.

They said that the users are asking for it.

It's so lazy to resort to the false dichotomy of US vs USSR, it doesn't say anything except "It's not as bad as it could've been". Every country in the world can point a finger at someone who had it worse.

And besides, "One may genuinly debate the genocide, racism, imperialism etc" is an essential part of why the working class had a good quality of life in the decades following WW2, particularly white people.

It's easy to build up a good lifestyle when you exploit foreign countries for resources and outsource your labor to poor people across the world because you're not the one paying the bill. But how do you sustain that when those people start demanding the same quality of life that you have? You don't, as we're seeing now.

> It's easy to build up a good lifestyle when you exploit foreign countries for resources and outsource your labor to poor people across the world because you're not the one paying the bill. But how do you sustain that when those people start demanding the same quality of life that you have? You don't, as we're seeing now.

That's quite an oversimplification of the prosperity of the US middle class, particularly given most of the gains happened prior to globalization.

I haven't seen them in person but a simple egg wash will make any baked product very shiny.

I'd be inclined to agree but typically egg wash alters the texture of the bread. You get a more darker and crunchy texture after baking. This bread is still soft and still quite light. The weird thing is the more expensive burger(Whopper) is still matte. You'd think if they were going to fancy up the bun it would be the Whopper bun right? Very strange.

> No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here.

You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.

Which god grants these rights? Krishna? Elohim? Muhammad? Jesus? Buddha? Allah? Ahura? Yahweh? The flying spaghetti monster?

Please provide real proof to such a claim.

And if it is indeed God who grants rights, why are such rights not universal to all of God's creations, and instead, only granted to white rural Americans when it is convenient to them?

Muhammad is not a god, and he was very insistent on that point. The Buddha is also not seen as a god is most traditions. Elohim, Allah, and Ahura are generic terms for God or gods.

One does not need to know the specific identity of God to justifiably believe that rights come from God. Suppose that I receive a handwritten letter with no name on it. By the nature of the letter, I can reasonably infer that it was sent by a human, even if I don't know what specific human it was.

GP's argument is that the nature of rights implies that they must come from God. This is because they think rights can't be taken away by others; if they could, they would be privileges, not rights. They presumably think that for a right to be inalienable, it must come from an authority above all others, like God.

You seem to think that rights only apply to specific people at specific times and places. That's fine, but it's the very point that GP was addressing—if rights are given by the government, then they're not rights at all. Restating the claim that rights are not universal does not address GP's argument.

I don't think GP's argument works when it comes to God, because it might be that rights simply exist independent of any authority. Maybe they're an emergent property of human beings, or maybe they simply exist, the way that many believe that God, the number two, or the universe itself just exist without cause. GP might not agree, but it's certainly coherent to believe in inalienable rights without believing in God.

The comment was not an appeal to religion. It's making the point that the notion of intrinsic rights is philosophical, and there must be a greater authority above all human systems if there can be a right at all. Otherwise, it's just something that the prevailing authority allows.

The point as it relates to the American Constitution is that that it was conceived with the notion of these divine rights and explicitly recognizes that there is no authority that can deprive the individual of them, thereby placing a hard limit on what a government can do.

You're free to disagree with the notion, of course, but it's worth understanding the foundation.

…or, Baal, Nature, Reason, etc. take your pick, heck probably even AI; which would “happily” explain it to you and answer all your “clever” questions, unlike me.

What's with the weird quotes? Are you writing your answers in Word and pasting them into here?

I'm not asking "clever" questions. You clearly state that rights are given by a divine being. Since humans for thousands of years have had different ideas about "god", I'm simply asking which of those beings is the one that grants rights.

Because the truth is - there is no "god" in the way humans think there is. Saying some mythical sky-daddy grants a certain group of people "rights" at a given point in time is laughable at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst.

Barring physical limitations, what you can and can't do is ultimately determined by what the society you are by and large a part of deems to be acceptable behaviour.

Government rules and social norms can change over time, it ultimately doesn't matter what you feel is "right" or what some law says is "right", it's really about what you can get away with.

A large part of what you can get away with is determined about whether or not you will ultimately be penalized for your actions (possibly through violence), and laws can keep people aligned on what is or isn't going to be accepted and when people deemed to be acting in a socially unacceptable way are likely to be penalized in some form.

While "rights" may be somewhat philosophical, they can have very real physical "weight" behind them in the form of other people "enforcing" them.

And finally, in case you are mistakenly under the impression that I think it's okay for anyone to do anything they want so long as they can get away with it, I don't, but that discussion drifts into the territory of morality and ethics which, while related, are nevertheless different and very large topics of discussion in themselves.

If you believe rights are what God and the Constitution grant, then they're meaningless. Some piece of paper has no real–world relevance. Cops shooting people in the face has real–world relevance.

If you think that I believe the Constitution “grant” rights, then your comment is meaningless (and you lack basic comprehension).

God doesn't have a typewriter, as far as I know. When he gets one I hope he clears up which 99.9% of human religions are heretical and which 0.01% are divine law, that would be really helpful.

In the meantime, rights are not granted by anyone. They are a contract between the governed and those that govern. Breaking that contract is the sort of thing that doesn't end up working out well for the governing class.

Since the existence of God is implicit in your assertion, are you suggesting he isn’t omnipotent, or have you come up with a new definitional concept of ownership? Or maybe you just don’t believe in the existence of typewriters.

Yeah, the typewriter thing.

You can't reason someone out of something they clearly didn't reason themselves into. If they cared about the truth and evidence they wouldn't be holding that opinion right now.

Enough of them to give rise to the term "algospeak" which means using words like "unalive" in place of "kill" to avoid automated censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algospeak

Meanwhile you can report a bot who's posted 20+ comments under a video to advertise illegal drugs and all of the reports and subsequent appeals will consistently come back as "No violation found".

This has been happening for 10+ years on e.g. YouTube, you can't say certain words in the video or mention them in the title or you get demonetized. Nothing to do with China.

>> All the tech was already put in place by China. All that the U.S. had to do was change the filtered words.

> I've never seen reports of censorship like this on TikTok before Ellison bought it.

> you can't say certain words in the video or mention them in the title or you get demonetized

That's not censorship problems.

That's advertisement problems. That's conflicts of interest problems. That's incentives problems. That's people-who-post-videos-just-to-make-money problems.

Well, okay, it can easily be turned into censorship problems: instead of just demonetizing the video, don't show it to anyone. It's quite a fine line, but the line is indeed there.

The Chinese one is to do with China, the American one is to do with America.

Does "kill" have some type of salient political valence that I'm not aware of?

This seems like a fairly blunt attempt at quality-of-life improvement for the general platform vibes, no? Put some friction on the (legitimate) nutjobs who just want to say "Kill X, kill Y" all the time and are so insane they can't figure out euphemisms?

I happen to think that's largely a self-delusion which nobody is immune to, no matter how smart you are (or think you are).

I've heard this from a few smart people whom I know really well. They strongly believe this, they also believe that most people are deluding themselves, but not them - they're in the actually-great group, and when I pointed out the sloppiness of their LLM-assisted work they wouldn't have any of it.

I'm specifically talking about experienced programmers who now let LLMs write majority of their code.

All on my own, I hand-craft pretty good code, and I do it pretty fast. But one person is finite, and the amount of software to write is large.

If you add a second, skilled programmer, just having two people communicating imperfectly drops quality to 90% of the base.

If I add an LLM instead, it drops to maybe 80% of my base quality. But it's still not bad. I'm reading the diffs. There are tests and fancy property tests and even more documentation explaining constraints that Claude would otherwise miss.

So the question is if I can get 2x the features at 80% of the quality, how does that 80% compare to what the engineering problem requires?

I was somewhat surprised to find that the differentiator isn't being smart or not, but the ability to accurately assess when they know something.

From my own observations, the types of people I previously observed to be sloppy in their thought processes and otherwise work, correlates almost perfectly with those that seem most eager to praise LLMs.

It's almost as if the ability to identify bullshit, makes you critical of the ultimate bullshit generator.

> What do you think the grift is here exactly?

The obvious? Selling subscriptions to individuals, reaching higher-ups with bombastic headlines, reaching potential investors, perpetuating the bubble.

Do those "higher-ups" or potential investors have any agency?

> I think the people making out that Cursor massively and dishonestly over-hyped this are arguing with a straw man version of what the company representatives actually said.

It's far more dishonest to search for contrived interpretations of their statements in an attempt to frame them as "mostly accurate" when their statements are clearly misleading (and in my opinion, intentionally so).

You're giving them infinite benefit of the doubt where they deserve none, as this industry is well known for intentionally misleading statements, you're brushing off serious factual misrepresentations as simple "lack of nuance" and finally trying to discredit people who have an issue with all of this.

With all due respect, that's not the behavior of a neutral reporter but someone who's heavily invested in maintaining a certain narrative.